Michael Segel wrote:
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 15:40, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
I wasn't going to respond but...
Sorry to be a nit, but this isn't a bug.
It depends - see below.
Maybe this is one of my pet peeves, but just because Derby doesn't behave the
way you think it should means that there is a "product defect". (A polite way
to call something a "bug".)
Does anyone recall "big endian and little endian" issues?
Or am I dating myself cause everyone uses Intel these days? ;-)
You don't just copy a database and drop it on a new system and say voila!
Well...actually, that's what my original question was all about. You
see, I have seen sentences like "on-disk database format is portable
too" in Derby presentations (don't bother to look up references to them
now), so I wanted to clarify whether this is (or should be made) part of
Derby's charter. If so, then any violation of that would, in fact, be a
bug. And then you _should_ be able to copy a database, drop it on a new
system and say voila.
I know developers want to create applications and deploy them with
pre-built databases on multiple platforms. For them, just the fact that
"it seems to be working today" isn't good enough - they need a statement
that this is a Derby feature they can rely on.
Then they won't end up calling something a bug just because it doesn't
behave the way they think it should. (They would call it a bug since it
violates the Derby charter. ;o)
--
Oyvind Bakksjo
Sun Microsystems, Database Technology Group
Trondheim, Norway
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/bakksjo/
